After your enemy has to stop dropping bombs and rockets to occupy the ground with his troops, he is then vulnerable to small arms. Then the playing field is level. If you have any questions about this concept in modern warfare, ask the Vietnamese.

That may be
But I'd put my money on a professionally trained army
Than some civilians with some shot guns

What's the point of invading and taking over some place if you're going to destroy it with rockets and bombs?

We get it, you don't like guns, but this isn't the thread to debate that in... I think you already made your dislike for the Second Amendment well known in the other thread

Oh
I thought bombing other countries was a US specialty
That's basically how wars are fought now
You go in with bombers, Take out anti aircraft, runways, key bridges etc
Then once you have air superiority
Then your troops move in
And the troops won't just be armed with guns, they will have satellite reconnaissance, radar, night vision googles, AWACS planes, bazookas etc

There's no way you can convince me that because x percentage of Americans have guns
That this makes the US a safer place from an enemy invasion
If we'rre talking army vs civilians
Army will win 90% of the time

Oh
I thought bombing other countries was a US specialty
That's basically how wars are fought now
You go in with bombers, Take out anti aircraft, runways, key bridges etc
Then once you have air superiority
Then your troops move in
And the troops won't just be armed with guns, they will have satellite reconnaissance, radar, night vision googles, AWACS planes, bazookas etc

There's no way you can convince me that because x percentage of Americans have guns
That this makes the US a safer place from an enemy invasionIf we'rre talking army vs civilians
Army will win 90% of the time

There's no way you can convince me that because x percentage of Americans have guns
That this makes the US a safer place from an enemy invasion
If we'rre talking army vs civilians Army will win 90% of the time

You seem to forget that the US has a retired Army of old VET's that know what it is all about. That VET Army amounts to hundreds of thousands of men from past wars that has had the training and seen combat. You really want to go up against those guys when it their homes that are in danger. I wouldn't want to and I am one of those VET's.

BTW: This isn't the UK or Russia and other countries where only shotguns are allowed in civilian hands. Most of us have some serious fire power in our gun cases. Oh and don't forget the folks in the inter cities that are armed to the teeth and really don't like authority.

Oh
I thought bombing other countries was a US specialty
That's basically how wars are fought now
You go in with bombers, Take out anti aircraft, runways, key bridges etc
Then once you have air superiority
Then your troops move in
And the troops won't just be armed with guns, they will have satellite reconnaissance, radar, night vision googles, AWACS planes, bazookas etc

There's no way you can convince me that because x percentage of Americans have guns
That this makes the US a safer place from an enemy invasion
If we'rre talking army vs civilians
Army will win 90% of the time

You obviously know nothing of war, but I will indulge.

If the point is to invade and annex/colonize, you don't want to destroy everything. Sure, you'll take out "key strategic targets," but you're not going to level everything.

In order to stop the 200 million plus armed Americans, an invading Army would have to level everything, or be faced with at least a century of guerilla warfare, that even our great American military has struggled with for decades. Tell me what country would spend a hundred years of time and money trying to kill every last armed American citizen? Oh, I didn't think so.

This is like way OT though, so I'll just leave it at that. I'm not debating the fact that a well trained Army/Air Force can take out people with just guns, that's pretty obvious. I'm debating that they can't sucessfully colonize the USA because of the millions of armed people that would likely form groups and fight back once the smoke from the bombs settled. People would hide in the mountains (which we have plenty of), just like the Taliban is hiding in the Afghan mountains now.

So you're saying a foreign army equipped with jets, tanks, rockets, warships, bombers will be brought to a standstill because some of you have guns?
Interesting

Not at all what I said. I said they wouldn't be able to occupy without completely laying waste to the place first and killing most of the people, leaving not much worth taking but some radioactive dirt.

Quote:

Frighteningly so. But in all honesty, you don't think that the guy holed-up in Idaho with his arsenal of weapons, waiting for the wave of Sharia-law-indoctrinating Arabs to occupy the US, is more than slightly insane

Quote:

Originally Posted by straight six

I find it bizarre that so many Americans actually have these demented discussions about being overtaken, and then their bretheran say "right-on!".

I've made no comments about gun ownership, either for sport or protection; it's no different than liking sports cars in my opinion. But this US invasion conspiracy must make us look like the laughing stock of the world.

That's a very short view of history. I'm sure most Romans thought the same about the barbarians. We've not always been the most powerful country, and we won't always be. Hell- we've only had a powerful, standing Army for about 70 years. So no- private weapons won't be needed for national defense anytime soon, but by the time you need them, it's a bit late to get them. Think how much better the Syrians would be doing if they were as well armed as us. Also, the authors of the 2nd amendment were fighting against their own government, so there's always that. I'm sure most Romans before Ceaser didn't think they'd be ruled by tyrant emperors who worked the Senate like puppets. It's completely possible our country could go bankrupt, too. It isn't a "conspiracy theory", and very few people think anything like this will happen any time soon. However, wait long enough and sh!t happens. Things change.

Quote:

Oh
I thought bombing other countries was a US specialty
That's basically how wars are fought now
You go in with bombers, Take out anti aircraft, runways, key bridges etc
Then once you have air superiority
Then your troops move in
And the troops won't just be armed with guns, they will have satellite reconnaissance, radar, night vision googles, AWACS planes, bazookas etc

There's no way you can convince me that because x percentage of Americans have guns
That this makes the US a safer place from an enemy invasion
If we'rre talking army vs civilians
Army will win 90% of the time

Now days, we TRY to go to war doing as little damage as possible, with as few civilian causalities as possible (e.g. PGM's vs. carpet bombing a whole city to take down a factory). Then it's easy to move troops in, especially if a significant % of the population is OK with you being there. Invasion is easy- it's the occupation that's the tough part. That's because the locals know the land, know the people, and have nowhere to go and nothing to lose. The Army has to go home someday, and the troops aren't fighting for their homes. Our Army was scared shitless of massed civilian attacks that would occur should we have to invade the Japanese mainland, and most of them didn't have guns.

I think a lot of it is a difference in attitude. You see this American-esque individualistic can-do attitude as ridiculous chest thumping, and we see your...French-esque "I give up- won't even try" attitude as deplorable and craven.

Quote:

If the point is to invade and annex/colonize, you don't want to destroy everything. Sure, you'll take out "key strategic targets," but you're not going to level everything.

Exactly. The only case where you'd level everything is if the other country was a threat to your existence, and that's a completely different case than whether someone would ever try to occupy the US.

There are some things that people who have not served in the armed forces will never fully understand. And in this country, as mentioned before, we have PLENTY of military vets who would leap into action acting essentially as force multipliers with armed militia.

I really don't care if its perceived as arrogance or chest thumping, so send your bombers and missiles; do your worst. Because if there are Americans still alive when your boats hit the shore; you had better brought your friends and packed one hell of a lunch, because it's gonna be a long day. That's just how it is. It's the American spirit; this is the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Well said. And, for the record, I'm a former Captain and a well-reasoned professional, not some yahoo redneck in my bunker o guns in Idaho. You're probably right, Mp0wer, that it's vets who probably have that nofuckingway will I give up despite the odds attitude instilled into them.

Well said. And, for the record, I'm a former Captain and a well-reasoned professional, not some yahoo redneck in my bunker o guns in Idaho. You're probably right, Mp0wer, that it's vets who probably have that nofuckingway will I give up despite the odds attitude instilled into them.

One small message I'd like to say
When was the last time ( in the last 200 years) a country was even considering invading the states ?
Are we also protected against alien invasion?
Stampeding unicorns?
Or any other totally fictional scenario?

So I'm supposed to be thankful that millions of armed Americans are preventing the multitude of armies waiting at the borders, just aching to invade, if only you'd put down your guns?
And I'm supposed to be happy that the cost of that is that we have some mad man, shoot some innocent civilians, on a now weekly basis?
Is that the accepted cost of this security?

Call me crazy, but I'd rather have a little fear of invading armies, but not lose innocent people every few days, and take that as an acceptable cost.

I don't like to think of this, because I truely don't wish it on any of you.
But I wonder how you'd all feel if your kids, wives, loved ones, we're some of these people we hear about getting killed so often now.
Imagine if your kids went to the movies, and never came back, killed by a LEGALLY bought gun.
Would you still have that same gung-ho attitude?

Anyway I'm out of this conversation
It seems the admins are blocking people who were commenting on this thread
And I'm not a fan of admins directing the topic of discussion to suit their tastes
So fire away y'all
I hope you keep enjoying your guns, and fire away
I'm sure at some point, if things continue as they are with the weekly shootings, there won't be enough of you left to argue with

One small message I'd like to say
When was the last time ( in the last 200 years) a country was even considering invading the states ?
Are we also protected against alien invasion?
Stampeding unicorns?
Or any other totally fictional scenario?

So I'm supposed to be thankful that millions of armed Americans are preventing the multitude of armies waiting at the borders, just aching to invade, if only you'd put down your guns?
And I'm supposed to be happy that the cost of that is that we have some mad man, shoot some innocent civilians, on a now weekly basis?
Is that the accepted cost of this security?

Call me crazy, but I'd rather have a little fear of invading armies, but not lose innocent people every few days, and take that as an acceptable cost.

I don't like to think of this, because I truely don't wish it on any of you.
But I wonder how you'd all feel if your kids, wives, loved ones, we're some of these people we hear about getting killed so often now.
Imagine if your kids went to the movies, and never came back, killed by a LEGALLY bought gun.
Would you still have that same gung-ho attitude?

There are millions and millions of firearms in the United States. Probably enough for almost every man woman and child to have one or two! And you know what happens everyday with those millions and millions of guns? NOTHING! Absolutely nothing.

Having them for whatever purpose far outweighs any downside. Nuts are nuts and if it wasn't a gun they use to do a "bad thing" it would be something else.

Additionally, I like having criminals and, yes, sometimes even the cops (who I love and respect), just a little bit cautious and respectful about banging on my door.

I've also been in some really dicey places out in the boonies where everybody was carrying. Funny how polite people are when that is the case.

One small message I'd like to say
When was the last time ( in the last 200 years) a country was even considering invading the states ?

The last actual invasion was the war of 1812-15. I'm sure invasion was considered by the axis powers in WWII, but no plans were made because the axis powers were tied up closer to home, and such an invasion would be difficult with the military tech at the time given the distances and lack of forward operating bases, as we had in Britian.

Again, nobody is expecting an invasion in our lifetimes.

Quote:

Call me crazy, but I'd rather have a little fear of invading armies, but not lose innocent people every few days, and take that as an acceptable cost.

What makes you think you wouldn't lose innocent people to gun violence every day if guns were illegal? Murder is ALREADY illegal. There are other benefits, too. In fact, just today a concealed-carry holder subdued a man who stabbed a woman in front of an elementry school.

Quote:

Imagine if your kids went to the movies, and never came back, killed by a LEGALLY bought gun.
Would you still have that same gung-ho attitude?

I don't think I'd feel any better if they were killed by an illegally purchased gun, or by a bomb, or by nerve gas, or any other means.